Author Topic: Save Money and Get a Big Ship  (Read 18342 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,543
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,758
  • Ready Aye Ready
Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« on: May 21, 2016, 15:47:52 »
So I read this article in Esprit Des Corps:

http://curtisreports.blogspot.ca/2016/05/save-money-and-get-big-ship.html

I find it very interesting.  It is something I have been bringing up in conversations in C&POs when we chat about capability.

Missiles are great and all but we really don't carry enough on CPFs to more than shoot and scoot home.  And I would imagine our stockpile isn't big enough sustain a conventional war.  This is why I believe that guns will be more important than most realize should we engage in a conventional surface war.

I tend to agree that our RCN should be centered around 2 Capital ships that have large caliber primary guns and a selection of smaller guns and cruise missiles.  This tends to support my belief that the RCN should make itself the "preferred taxi service" of the Army.  Thus also incorporating 2 ships similar in capability to the Minstrels.

This would let us move soldiers to a conflict/humanitarian zone, employ them effectively and support them with everything from naval gunfire to medical support. 

Of course this is all just a pipe dream.  But could be an interesting discussion.

So my optimal combatant fleet composition for the RCN would be:

East Coast:

1 X Capital Ship (Big Gun, Cruise Missiles)
1 X "Minstrel" Class Ship
2 X DDH
4 X FFH
4 X MCDV
2 X AOPS
3 X SSN
1 X AOR *

West Coast:

1 X Capital Ship (Big Gun, Cruise Missiles)
1 X "Minstrel" Class Ship
2 X DDH
4 X FFH
4 X MCDV
2 X AOPS
3 X SSN
1 X AOR *

* = As well 1 additional AOR would move between the coasts, as required, to cover off any refits or long out of operation periods by AORs.

That is a 37 combatant ship Navy; and one that I believe is well balanced and hard hitting enough to be a solid middle power player.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2016, 15:58:32 by Halifax Tar »
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #1 on: May 21, 2016, 18:20:56 »
That is one of the stupidest article I have read in a long time (not your post Halifax Tar, but Mr. Curtis' article).

Ajax, Achiles, Exeter and Graf Spee each faster and more powerful than current Canadian warships. Come on: A single HALIFAX sends all four of them to their doom in a single engagement, before any of them even has an inkling that HALIFAX is around. Long range surface radars and observation system on the Halifax will reveal what She is up against almost hours before any of these ships spots her. And then, they don't even have the means to know they have been detected. Finally, you just lob two Harpoons at each, which they have no way of stopping or even detecting and they are dead before they know anything happened.

And that is just a simple frigate taking on three battle cruisers and cruisers - capital ships of WWII, but insignificant ship's today.

If such capital ships were still useful, you can be sure that other, more important, navies would still have them. Even the Americans have concluded that their IOWA class battleship's are not worth the money they cost anymore.


jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #2 on: May 21, 2016, 19:41:20 »
A more modern  example would be what happened to the General Belgrano in the Falklands, an antique in modern day naval combat and I am sure made the USN a little nervous about their BB's.  But, OGBD, to be fair isn't the Rail Gun going to be a more up to date version of what the Capital ships of yore's rifles provided and why they're doing it?  I saw a video of where the Admiral from the project was describing how he can have hundreds and hundreds of projectiles in his magazines vs a combat load of comparable missiles.  Cheaper cost per shot, no worries of powder in the magazines and a very respectable reach and kinetic punch.  Ergo, going back to the possibility of NGS as in the past.

Have not read the article, but I am guessing he is a non-SME type just throwing it out there in sprit if not in a more educated reality basis of cold hard fact.

« Last Edit: May 21, 2016, 19:44:26 by jollyjacktar »

Offline Fred Herriot

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 239
  • New Recruit
    • http://NA
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #3 on: May 21, 2016, 19:42:55 »
Agreed.  The gentleman wrote a pretty article, but the facts were wrong in several areas.  Much that I've often liked EdC as a good way for the lower ranks to get a chance to vent on things, I honestly wish that a little more research was done.
Non Nobis Sed Patriae
Servire Armatis

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 52,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 596
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2016, 09:44:39 »

...

Missiles are great and all but we really don't carry enough on CPFs to more than shoot and scoot home.  And I would imagine our stockpile isn't big enough sustain a conventional war.  This is why I believe that guns will be more important than most realize should we engage in a conventional surface war.

...


This may be true vs. an opponent that is equally limited in the number of missiles they have available.  More likely we'd run out of missiles before the enemy (Russians/Chinese) and be left facing their missiles with guns.  Like the proverbial "bringing a knife to a gun fight".

Not saying large caliber guns don't have a role...but should they be viewed as an alternative to missiles?

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2016, 10:20:24 »
"Minstrel"

They would sail into battle with a great musical accompaniment...

Damned Autocorrect.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2016, 10:48:07 »
They would sail into battle with a great musical accompaniment...

Damned Autocorrect.

Yes of course, Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries".  :)



Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 206,392
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,209
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2016, 11:36:37 »
That is culturally linked with airmobile assaults, thanks to Apocalypse Now. You could have bigger speakers, though.

Paint-filled ammunition a la Kelly's Heroes could add a nice visual splash to the music. How much paint could be packed into a cruise missile?

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 196,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,240
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2016, 12:06:38 »
Yes of course, Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries".  :)

Give over!  "Hearts of Oak"!   [:p
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 196,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,240
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2016, 12:08:37 »
That is culturally linked with airmobile assaults, thanks to Apocalypse Now. You could have bigger speakers, though.

Paint-filled ammunition a la Kelly's Heroes could add a nice visual splash to the music. How much paint could be packed into a cruise missile?

What would be the effect of a missile load of metallic paint on the ship's sensors?  (Fast Drying - needless to say).
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2016, 12:34:50 »
That is culturally linked with airmobile assaults, thanks to Apocalypse Now. You could have bigger speakers, though.

Paint-filled ammunition a la Kelly's Heroes could add a nice visual splash to the music. How much paint could be packed into a cruise missile?

Or, you could use actual Minstrels ala the Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  After all, were not the various bands under threat?

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 421,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,915
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2016, 12:45:53 »
Mistral =/= Minstrel.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2016, 12:57:50 »
We thought it did, until we got wind of your post.

(See what I did, there  [:D).

But do ponder these words from "Le Mistral" by Roger Whittaker:

Ce vent qui fait danser la mer est violent comme le tonnerre;
Ou alors ils se calme et devient le plus doux de tous les musiciens;
Le Mistral ressemble à l'amour car il est fou et si tendre.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 177,491
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,864
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2016, 13:33:52 »
I'm not holding my breath for anything more than a few AOPS at this point.

The intended Defense Review will probably discover that we (Canada) has little need for anything more than a constabulary Navy.

At that point, the Victoria class will end up disappearing, the Halifax class will end up reverting to national taskings and not be replaced, there will be no need for the AOR's, and the Frigate replacement project will become an MCDV replacement project.

Or we could get lucky and end up actually seeing new ships.

During our best years, I didn't think I'd realistically see a BHS in Halifax harbour.  Now I have my doubts about any future class for which steel has not yet been cut.

NS


Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2016, 14:15:33 »
I share your fears.

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 18,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 820
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #15 on: June 06, 2016, 10:00:15 »
I'm not holding my breath for anything more than a few AOPS at this point.

The intended Defense Review will probably discover that we (Canada) has little need for anything more than a constabulary Navy.

At that point, the Victoria class will end up disappearing, the Halifax class will end up reverting to national taskings and not be replaced, there will be no need for the AOR's, and the Frigate replacement project will become an MCDV replacement project.

Or we could get lucky and end up actually seeing new ships.

During our best years, I didn't think I'd realistically see a BHS in Halifax harbour.  Now I have my doubts about any future class for which steel has not yet been cut.

NS

I have similar misgivings except for one niggling thought. 
I think the army will take the cuts more than the navy.  The Navy is an invaluable tool for the government, especially Liberal governments all the way back to WWII.  Mac-King committed so much emphasis on the navy because it would avoid the casualties of the WWI with ground troops and was very resistant to committing an army to Europe.  Chrétien was similarly happy with the naval effort for the *Gulf War 2.0.  The Cuban missile crisis, 911 response, etc...  The navy gets us more political brownie points with the US than ground troops usually do.  It gets more domestic brownie points as well (jobs jobs jobs).  And it's easily ignored nature doesn't bring up the nasty "combat" thoughts in the general media.  Trudeau's statement that he wants to "spend the money" on the navy is important.  It also makes much more strategic sense from a Canadian foreign (sorry GLOBAL) policy perspective when thinking about Canada's core strategic interests.  But we will see I suppose.  I expect there will be things we dislike and things we like in any policy review.

*edit: thanks OGBD
« Last Edit: June 07, 2016, 09:00:12 by Underway »

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,753
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #16 on: June 06, 2016, 10:10:30 »
A navy fitted for, but not with nasty pointy sticks

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 196,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,240
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2016, 10:53:43 »
A navy fitted for, but not with nasty pointy sticks

You could poke someone's eye out!  :o
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,454
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,903
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2016, 10:59:22 »
But, OGBD, to be fair isn't the Rail Gun going to be a more up to date version of what the Capital ships of yore's rifles provided and why they're doing it?

The issue is actually getting into gun range. Yes, the rail gun is toted to have huge range, but will it be accurate against a moving warship? We don't have the capability to conduct over the horizon engagement with third party "active" targeting, so you're basically lobbing shells based on speed and direction, both of which change drastically during an engagement.

Right now, missiles are developing in capability much faster than missile defences. We don't have any actual engagement data involving modern missiles with which to assess our modern anti-missile defenses. So far, it looks like a case of MAD. You lob your missiles at me, and I lob my missiles at you, and we both die. The fleet with the most ship's wins. Bigger ships might also be able to eat a few missiles without being right offs.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 103,489
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,918
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2016, 11:45:17 »
The issue is actually getting into gun range. Yes, the rail gun is toted to have huge range, but will it be accurate against a moving warship? We don't have the capability to conduct over the horizon engagement with third party "active" targeting, so you're basically lobbing shells based on speed and direction, both of which change drastically during an engagement.

Right now, missiles are developing in capability much faster than missile defences. We don't have any actual engagement data involving modern missiles with which to assess our modern anti-missile defenses. So far, it looks like a case of MAD. You lob your missiles at me, and I lob my missiles at you, and we both die. The fleet with the most ship's wins. Bigger ships might also be able to eat a few missiles without being right offs.

I attended a lecture given by Gwynne Dyer a number of years ago and Dr. Dyer surmised that any big conventional war today would involve the powers that be lobbing missiles at each other with everyones high tech tanks, ships and planes destroyed after about two weeks.

After that, warfare would revert to something like what we saw in WW1 with every side equipped with relatively lowtech weaponry but able to be produced en masse.  I can't help but think he was/is right.

jollyjacktar

  • Guest
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #20 on: June 06, 2016, 11:51:09 »
The issue is actually getting into gun range. Yes, the rail gun is toted to have huge range, but will it be accurate against a moving warship? We don't have the capability to conduct over the horizon engagement with third party "active" targeting, so you're basically lobbing shells based on speed and direction, both of which change drastically during an engagement.

Right now, missiles are developing in capability much faster than missile defences. We don't have any actual engagement data involving modern missiles with which to assess our modern anti-missile defenses. So far, it looks like a case of MAD. You lob your missiles at me, and I lob my missiles at you, and we both die. The fleet with the most ship's wins. Bigger ships might also be able to eat a few missiles without being right offs.


From what I have seen on YouTube on missile tests against target ships, I don't know if even the big fellas could eat more than one missile before becoming a write off for all intents and purposes.

I attended a lecture given by Gwynne Dyer a number of years ago and Dr. Dyer surmised that any big conventional war today would involve the powers that be lobbing missiles at each other with everyones high tech tanks, ships and planes destroyed after about two weeks.

After that, warfare would revert to something like what we saw in WW1 with every side equipped with relatively lowtech weaponry but able to be produced en masse.  I can't help but think he was/is right.

“I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”  - Albert Einstein

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 52,454
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,903
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #21 on: June 06, 2016, 11:59:07 »
I attended a lecture given by Gwynne Dyer a number of years ago and Dr. Dyer surmised that any big conventional war today would involve the powers that be lobbing missiles at each other with everyones high tech tanks, ships and planes destroyed after about two weeks.

After that, warfare would revert to something like what we saw in WW1 with every side equipped with relatively lowtech weaponry but able to be produced en masse.  I can't help but think he was/is right.

Possibly, but I think it would depend on who is fighting who, it terms of the relative sizes of their militaries. If the Chinese when to war with Japan, for example, they could sustain a 2:1 loss ration in terms of ship's and fighter air craft, and still come out on top (Eastern Front WWII, anyone?).

But there could be away that a major power, going up against an equally powerful enemy, could avoid this, and that would be with a preemptive strike. The US isn't stupid. They aren't going to advertise on CNN that they are declaring war on China/Russia, whichever. If relations got so bad that they were on the brink of war, I feel like the US, before advertising it to the public, would make a firm decision "the war is on". Long before this point, they'd have SSGNs siting outside major PLAN/RN naval basis, and SSNs shadowing any units at sea, and on the day they determine that they are past the tipping point, suddenly all the PLAN/RN ships are put out of action before the war even starts.

Hmm... I think I just described a American version of Pearl Harbour, so maybe I need to rework this theory...
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,444
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #22 on: June 06, 2016, 15:34:23 »
I have similar misgivings except for one niggling thought. 
I think the army will take the cuts more than the navy.  The Navy is an invaluable tool for the government, especially Liberal governments all the way back to WWII.  Mac-King committed so much emphasis on the navy because it would avoid the casualties of the WWI with ground troops and was very resistant to committing an army to Europe.  Chrétien was similarly happy with the naval effort for the Gulf War.  The Cuban missile crisis, 911 response, etc...  The navy gets us more political brownie points with the US than ground troops usually do.  It gets more domestic brownie points as well (jobs jobs jobs).  And it's easily ignored nature doesn't bring up the nasty "combat" thoughts in the general media.  Trudeau's statement that he wants to "spend the money" on the navy is important.  It also makes much more strategic sense from a Canadian foreign (sorry GLOBAL) policy perspective when thinking about Canada's core strategic interests.  But we will see I suppose.  I expect there will be things we dislike and things we like in any policy review.

Just a small historical correction here Underway: Chretien had absolutely nothing to do with sending the navy into the Gulf War. In fact, that happened three years before he even became Prime Minister. It was PM Mulroney that sent the Navy to GW. (GW = 1990-91; PM Chretien = 1993-2003)

It was PM Chretien, however, that committed the CF to a huge increase of troops in AFG (from about 500-600 up to more than 2000) notwithstanding the fact that the CF leadership of the time told him we did not have the resources to do it (as was later confirmed by the Manley report, leading the Conservatives under PM Harper to acquire urgently many pieces of kit) in the early 2003, so he could then claim that he did not have any resources to put into the Iraq campaign.

Offline recceguy

    A Usual Suspect.

  • Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services pai
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 266,372
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,198
  • doddering docent to the museum of misanthropy
    • Army.ca
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #23 on: June 06, 2016, 20:35:33 »
Chretien also didn't want to go into Iraq because it would upset TotalFinaElf (Power Corp) assets in that country. Power Corp (and Chretien) stood to make millions if Saddam Hussein stayed in power. By tying us up in Afghanistan, we wouldn't be able to participate in Iraq.

Dated but relevant, even today as another Liberal PM, with ties to Power Corp, is in charge of our country.

More on link: http://www.primetimecrime.com/contributing/2005/20050120Gray.htm

Quote
Canadian Legacy: The familial and financial ins and outs of Canadian politics.

By Ann Jane Gray

Many puzzled Canadians have watched while Jean Chretien pursued an anti-American, pro-Saddam Hussein policy that is not in the best interests of Canada.  If Hussein had managed to retain power, Jean Chretien's family stood to make millions. We believe that much can be explained by examining the political and familial connections of the Prime Minister.

First it is necessary to understand that some federal (and provincial) politicians of all stripes belong to an exclusive club. Below you will read about the cast of characters and some of the known leading roles:

John Rae was the leading strategist for Jean Chretien's election campaign. He was formerly the Executive vice-president of Power Corp. He is the brother of Bob Rae, the former NDP premier of Ontario.

Bob Rae, while Premier of Ontario, appointed Maurice Strong as chairman of Ontario Hydro. The past CEO of Paul Desmarais' Power Corporation, Strong was appointed to the UN as a senior environmental adviser to the UN secretary-general and Chairman of the Earth Council. His area of responsibility was the Kyoto Accord.

Paul Martin, formerly the Finance Minister under the current regime is considered a shoo in for Prime Minister as Jean Chretien exits the scene in February of 2004. Martin was previously on the board of Power Corp and formerly on the board of Connaught Laboratories. Allegations have been made of Connaught's implication in the tainted blood scandal. Martin and a partner purchased Canada Steamship Lines from Paul Desmarais of Power Corp at extremely favorable terms. Martin later bought the partner out. What obligations does Martin owe to Power Corporation interests once he becomes Prime Minister? Martin registered many of his vessels out of the country in third world registries, thus evading Canadian income taxes. Third world crews working in third world conditions crew his third world registry ships. Canadians must question whether the morality of Martin's evading Canadian income taxes while Finance Minister is a matter of concern. (I watch foreign registered Canadian Steamship Lines freighters go by every day in the Great Lakes - recceguy)

Jean Chretien's daughter France is married to Andre Desmarais, the son of Paul Desmarais, of Power Corporation. Andre is on the board of multinational communications conglomerate Vivendi.  He runs Power Corporation. (estimated annual revenues $18-billion)

According to Paul Jackson of the Calgary Sun, in Le Monde, December 1, 1994, Jean Chretien, while in France talked about how French-Canadians had been "humiliated"  by the English and how today they see themselves as "martyrs." He boasted he was getting his own revenge and we quote: "For example, I have just appointed an Acadian to the office of governor general. So the governor general is a francophone. The same is true, among others, of the prime minister, the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Speaker of the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Minister of Finance."

Many Canadians will remember Jean Chretien's frequent trips to China. Andre Desmarais sits on the board of Peoples' Republic of China's China International Trust and Investment Corporation. This is considered to be the investment arm of the Chinese military. Through Project Sidewinder, the RCMP tried to investigate the links between the Prime Minister of Canada, Desmarais and China. and potential undue influence on Canadian politicians.  For more information on the China connection read the WatchDog article "Jean Chretien and the Sidewinder Report."

Jean Chretien supported the powerful third world bloc of the UN. He supported France, Germany and Russia whose oil and debt interests in Iraq apparently override any human rights violation or concerns. He could have another more immediate reason.  According to Diane Francis of the National Post, Paris-based TotalFinaElf's biggest shareholder is Paul Desmarais Sr. She also states in a recent article, "Canada's stance is all the more unacceptable because it aligns us with such soiled nations as France, Germany and Russia which made billions of dollars with Saddam Hussein, ran interference for him diplomatically and signed huge future oil contracts with his deposed regime." --End of quote. Paul Desmarais Jr. sits on the board of TotalFinaElf.

Totalfinael apparently now has a large share of the major oilsands project in Alberta. The Alberta Oilsands could be one of the two largest relatively untapped oil reserves in the world. It will not be in France's interests to have Alberta secede to become a new independent nation or to join with the United States.

So it seems apparent the the financial oil interests of Jean Chretien's family had a direct bearing on the stance Canada took in the recent liberation of Iraq.

Mitchell Sharp, while Finance Minister introduced Jean Chretien to politics. When Chretien became Prime Minister, Mitchell Sharpe was appointed as the famous dollar a year advisor to Chretien. Since 1981, Sharpe has been vice-Chairman of North American of the Trilateral Commission.

Daniel Johnson formerly Liberal leader in Quebec is credited for having delivered much federal spending to the Quebec based Power Corporation.

Brian Mulroney, the Conservative ex-Prime Minister is now on a dozen boards in corporate offices including some Power Corporation and Quebecor World. He is a lawyer and lobbyist for Power Corporation. Power Corp and Ontario Hydro and Hydro Quebec formed a Hong Kong-based Asian Group Inc. to assist China in developing its energy potential.
Sources claim Power Corp's legal interests in Asia are reportedly handled by a Hong Kong branch of Mulroney's Montreal law firm, Ogilvy Renault.

While in office, Pierre Trudeau's government (Prime Minister and a former Power Corp. lawyer) signed over millions to Power Corporation under federal grant programs. Desmarais was credited with funding his election campaign.

Power Corporation began as a broken down bus line in Ontario. He moved his company to Quebec where he purchased another bus line in Quebec City. Able to get the ear of government, Desmarais went from success to success. Today Power Corporation is a multi-national company with many subsidiaries, over-extended not surprisingly as government bailouts have always been there. Since the first of the year Bombardier has received $1.5 billion in loans for its planes. These low-interest loans made to countries such as Spain have allowed them to buy airplanes, thus enabling this troubled industry to stay afloat.

So we now have an elite club of Conservatives, (Mulroney) Liberals (Trudeau and Chretien) and the NDP (Bob Rae) all connected to Paul Desmarais and Power Corporation.

So, who's really pulling the strings in Ottawa? We just gave another forgivable loan to Bombardier (Power Corp) and the government is stalling on the pipelines. Perhaps to ensure that Desmarais oil gets to our east coast from the middle east in tankers?
Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,753
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Save Money and Get a Big Ship
« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2016, 10:24:13 »
that was a trip down memory lane my blood pressure didn't need......